UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMETRE ALLEN BAXTER, a/k/a Me Dot, a/k/a Meet Dot,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00243-TLW-7)

Submitted: May 29, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetre Allen Baxter pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to conspiracy 

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2018). After extensive consideration of several issues 

that were resolved in Baxter’s favor, the district court established an advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months and sentenced Baxter to 80 months’ imprisonment. 

Baxter’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal but questioning whether Baxter’s 

within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, Baxter has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response 

brief. We affirm.

We review all federal “sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the 

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2018)] factors, . . . or 

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence[.]” Id. at 51; see United States v. 

Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). If there is no significant procedural error, 

we then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any 

sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively 

reasonable.” United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).
3

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties the opportunity to argue for an 

appropriate sentence, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. Thus, we discern no 

procedural sentencing error in this case. We further conclude that Baxter has failed to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines-range sentence 

and, thus, hold that the selected sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Baxter, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Baxter requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Baxter. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED